yapi_list_category_interfaces

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that the operation is paginated ('分页获取') and supports filtering by status or tag, which are behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not go into details like auth or error behavior, but with read-only annotations, the bar is lower, and the pagination disclosure is valuable for an agent to manage paging.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and key filters. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists (so return structure is already defined), a required parameter is specified in the schema, and readOnlyHint is present, the description covers the essential operational context: it is a paginated, category-scoped interface list with optional filters. It lacks usage guidance but that is handled in another dimension; for a list tool, this is adequately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a description. The description mentions filtering by status or tag, which essentially repeats the schema. It adds minimal new meaning, such as grouping the filters, but does not explain value formats or relationships beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a paginated interface list scoped to a specific category, with optional status or tag filters. It names the resource (interfaces), the scope (category), and the operation (paged retrieval), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like yapi_list_interfaces (which likely lists all interfaces) and yapi_search_interface (which searches by keyword).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (it is for interfaces under a category), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yapi_list_interfaces or yapi_search_interface. There are no 'when not to use' statements or references to sibling tools, leaving the selection partially to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.